From Enlightenment to Inquisition: The Decline of Scottish Justice in the Age of Offence

 

C.J. STRACHAN

The 2018 conviction of a man for making a tasteless joke may have seemed small at the time, but it marked the moment when the state declared that speech, not violence, was its greatest concern. Since then the State’s war on speech has spread across the Kingdoms and it’s high time the people called time on an increasingly politicised system and insisted on the restoration of our natural rights.

The Enlightenment Legacy

Scotland’s legal system once stood as a proud testament to the nation’s intellectual rigour and commitment to justice. Post-Act of Union, while political power consolidated in London, Scotland retained its distinct legal identity, evolving into a system that emphasised reason, context, and intent—principles championed by Enlightenment thinkers like David Hume, Lord Monboddo, a judge himself and Adam Smith. This legal tradition became an embodiment of national identity, reflecting a society that valued freedom of thought and expression.

The Count Dankula Case: A Modern Inquisition

In stark contrast to this legacy, the 2018 conviction of Mark Meechan, known online as Count Dankula, marked a troubling departure. Meechan was fined £800 for posting a video in which he trained his girlfriend’s pug to perform a Nazi salute in response to phrases like “Sieg Heil” and “gas the Jews.” He maintained that the video was a joke intended to annoy his girlfriend, not an expression of hate. However, the court found him guilty under the Communications Act 2003 for sending a “grossly offensive” message via a public electronic communications network.

The court’s stance was particularly alarming: it declared that “context and intent are irrelevant,” effectively dismissing the foundational legal principle of mens rea — the intent behind an action. This perspective aligns more with authoritarian regimes than with a justice system rooted in Enlightenment values. The public across the Anglosphere, or at least those paying attention, seemed to agree and donations flooded in to fund Meechan’s appeal. With over £100,000 raised, much from the United States where those protected by their Constitution, were incredulous that this could be happening in one of the old countries, especially one with a long tradition of Freedom of Speech.

Appeals Denied: A System Unwilling to Reflect

Meechan’s attempts to appeal the conviction were systematically blocked. In August 2018, the Sheriff Appeal Court refused his appeal, labelling it “not arguable.” Subsequent efforts to escalate the case to the High Court of Justiciary and the UK Supreme Court were similarly dismissed. The Supreme Court deemed his application “incompetent” and “without merit,” leaving Meechan with no domestic legal recourse. He has since considered appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Erosion of Free Speech

This case sets a dangerous precedent. By criminalising a joke—regardless of its tastefulness—the Scottish legal system signalled a willingness to suppress speech based on subjective interpretations of offence. This approach undermines the very freedoms that Scotland’s legal tradition once championed.

The implications extend beyond this single case. If context and intent are no longer considered, any expression, joke, or satire could be subject to legal action if deemed offensive by someone. This creates a chilling effect, discouraging open discourse and eroding the public’s confidence in a fair and impartial justice system.

A Warning Ignored

The Count Dankula case should have served as a warning—a canary in the coal mine for a justice system losing its grip on principle and proportionality. Instead, it was dismissed by many in the political and legal class as a trivial internet sideshow. But the consequences of that judicial overreach are now plain to see.

When courts declare that “context is irrelevant” and when intent is brushed aside in favour of subjective offence, we open the door to arbitrary enforcement and political prosecutions. That door has now been kicked wide open. In the wake of the riots that spread across parts of England and Scotland in the summer of 2024, we witnessed a legal system unable—or unwilling—to act consistently. Some individuals were prosecuted for defending their homes or expressing controversial opinions, while others who engaged in actual violence were treated with leniency for fear of causing offence or inflaming tensions.

This double standard has not gone unnoticed by the public. It has further eroded trust in a justice system that was once admired for its balance and independence. When laws are interpreted to protect feelings rather than rights, and when enforcement is driven by ideology rather than evidence, society drifts towards a soft tyranny where fear replaces freedom.

Scotland’s Enlightenment legal tradition prized reason, justice, and intellectual courage. The courts of that era helped build a civilisation. The courts of today risk unbuilding it and of course since then we have had the Hate and Crime Public Order Act Scotland (2021) an abhorrent piece of legislation I’ve covered extensively.

If we are to recover the moral authority of our justice system, we must start by recognising how far we have drifted.

Ref:

“Count Dankula: Man who taught pug to do Nazi salute has appeal refused,” The Independent, August 2018.

“Supreme Court appeal blocked for man in Pug Nazi salute case,” BBC News, January 2019.

“Man who posted ‘Nazi dog’ video has human rights appeal bid dismissed as ‘unarguable and incompetent’,” Scottish Legal News, March 2019.

“Count Dankula GoFundMe: ‘Nazi pug’ man Mark Meechan raises £100,000 in bid to appeal court conviction,” London Evening Standard, April 2018.

“The conviction of Count Dankula sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech,” The Independent, March 2018.

Subscribe to C.J.Strachan